The 11+ was a eugenics test to weed out genetically "inferior" children, created by a classicist who falsified his research

[ParentOfOne]

I had already made a post a few months ago about why I think the 11+ and similar tests are flawed.

Since many families have just gone or are going through the 11+ drama now, I just wanted post a short but timely reminder that the 11+ was born as a eugenics test at the beginning of last century, when eugenics was all the rage. That meant looking for pseudo-scientific ways to improve the genetic "quality" of human population, by identifying "inferior" races and individuals, and "improving" the other ones.

The father of the 11+ was Cyril Burt, a posh t*at gentleman who studied classics at Oxford and then took an interest in psychology, without any training in medicine, psychology, mathematics, statistics.

He became convinced that intelligence was innate and not affected by the environment, and therefore wanted to find ways to identify the innately gifted and intelligent children, with the not so subtle implication that everyone else could go f* themselves was better suited for other, less academic pursuits.

Before dying, he burnt all his records and notes, and the current academic consensus is that he was guilty of scientific misconduct (falsifying data).

A campaign group against the 11+ and selective schools summarises his story here

If that seems too partisan, you might want to read what the British Psychological Society has to say (spoiler: mostly the same things).

To recap:

• the 11+ was created by a posh t* who had studied Classics and lacked any training in psychology, statistics, mathematics, the sciences in general
• the ideology behind it was the (now debunked) idea that intelligence is innate and unaffected by the environment
• the gentleman in question had fabricated a large part of his research
• there is no scientific study on the reliability of these tests, on how better or not the kids who ace these tests do vs the kids who do not, on why answering those questions in 30 seconds makes you more intelligent than answering them in 45, etc
• the very concept of IQ is controversial
• when similar tests are used by psychologists, they cannot be administered too frequently, otherwise the results are biased. This alone proves that the notion that there can be no tutoring is utter bs, as proven by the huge industry that exists around tutoring for the 11+
• it is well known that selective and partially selective state schools are hugely SOCIALLY selective; the % of kids on free school meals at those schools is always much lower than elsewhere (e.g. only 5.8% at Henrietta Barnett in London). Cyryl Burt would have said that richer kids are inherently more intelligent; I call bs and say those schools select the kids whose families can either tutor them themselves or pay for tutoring

So, if you are non-white and/or non-British and/or working class, remember that these tests were conceived with the explicit aim of weeding out undesirable and obviously genetically inferior people like you (if any artificial stupidity censor reads this, that was sarcasm ).

Probably been said already but non-white form the majority of students at the nearest grammar school to me and no doubt others near city centres.

@oviraptor21 Yes, quite a few comments already on how white working class kids (boys more than girls) are being failed by the system.

Simplifying, according to the right, it's all because the families are lazy, live on benefits, and don't care about education.
According to the left, it's all because society should support those families more.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I do not think that reflects current populist ring wing politics whatsoever. That is more along the lines of “you guys deserve better’, blame all those experts/academics for telling you have to be academic etc. and like them.

It depends on what you mean by populist. Reform and UKIP probably don't say that , but many Tories, and many close to the Tories do. Ever heard a speech by Birbalsingh, the headteacher of Michaela in Wembley?
Just a few weeks ago the Spectator had an article on this very topic https://archive.is/boLx8
blaming family stability, the declining of marriage, etc. I was surprised the journalist didn't mention that the UK is becoming more godless as a reason for its decline.

She's right. The #1 factor in wealth + social inequality is coming from a 2 parent + income family, or not.

The fundamental error is implying that a decline in marriage means a decline in the stability of the families. A family can be loving and stable even if the parents are not married.

I think this is backwards though. The instability of the family home is related to their lower IQ and impulse control. So children of these sorts of parents will experience a chaotic upbringing regardless and also probably inherit these tendencies from their parents.

To force these kinds of people to stay in a marriage is counterproductive. It’s like that study that said children’s educational attainment was related to books in the home, so education ‘experts’ tried to put books into the homes of all children—but it doesn’t work, because book ownership is more related to the higher IQ of the parents in the first place. Having books in the home is not going to compensate for that. (Mind, it wasn’t a bad initiative, some children will be outliers and enjoy the enriched environment. But it’s not going to move the needle on fixing any gaps).

Hmm I am sure some of that is true, but it is a factor in how well the children of immigrants do. South asians are much more likely to be married and stay married than other ethnic groups.

It's the Sutton Trust which makes the claim

“In his letter to The Times, he said: "While the UK has gone through ten education secretaries since Michael Gove left the post in 2014, the IB has remained a stable, politically independent framework for more than five decades. It is worth noting the other country that cut IB funding in recent weeks: Russia."”

In response to the IB and Latin being worth a hill to die on.

Look @ParentOfOne - of course you do not need to get married to be a good father and provide a stable home, but what you cannot do is judge Birbalsingh. She is excellent and delivers very clearly what she promises on the tin. Top grades in Maths and English GCSEs and compulsory RS. And a narrower curriculum than the comps you are choosing. But when you have a comp with lots of choice, it also means there are timetable clashes and your French is not necessarily going to be set for your DC. Hence some of us who want certain types of GCSEs for a reason, choose a grammar school, because we have actually understood how this all works in practice. You will get there eventually.

@Araminta1003 , First you crucify me because I dare have an opinion on things which are not the priorities, then you yap on about.... the IB (which probably affects... what? 1.5% of the students' population) and... Latin, which is probably taken by even fewer people. Did you miss school the day they explained the concept of consistency?

I mean, you could have talked about defunding special needs provisions, about all the parents who had to take their councils to court for that, about the struggle to hire and retain teachers, about how hard it is to find people who will mark GCSE and A level exams and why, about the **show that the marking of English Language GCSE is, with marks all over the place, about what a tragedy it is that from 1/4 to 1/3 of the kids fail to reach the expected level (from Y6 SATs all the way to GCSE), about how the system fails white working class kids, etc.

But no, you chose to talk about... IB and Latin.
A peak out of touch mumsnet moment.

but what you cannot do is judge Birbalsingh

Ah, no? I cannot have an opinion about a headteacher and her methods? Is that one of your rules? Could you please kindly enlighten me on what I am and not allowed to have an opinion on? Thank you!

I never criticised her for the narrow choice of subjects.

Crucially, I agreed with many of her starting points (lack of ambition, a culture of expecting too little from certain pupils and giving up on them, a culture of excuses, etc) and, before she founded Michaela school, I was actually hopeful. But she quickly lost the plot.

I criticise her for the same reason I criticise Mossbourne Academy in my long-running thread : because petty draconian capricious rules are unnecessary and counterproductive, they can create huge mental health problems even in compliant kids (think of all the Mossbourne kids who had anxiety attacks or went to therapy), because they do not develop critical thinking but, on the contrary, they force you to switch off your brain without questioning why, because some of those rules (like standing up with your arms crossed) are so stupid you have to unlearn them the moment you leave school. And because her method is very much focused on passive, switch-off-your-brain rote learning. Which is the exact opposite of what society needs.

You will get there eventually.

Your arrogance and entitlement are unbelievable. Had a man told you those same words, he would have been crucified for being arrogant patronising male entitlement intersectional oppression yadda yadda ya

But when a woman does the same... al is fine. Because this is mumsnet. Where men are always wrong and women are always right. Pathetic.

You really do have a problem with women don't you? Especially articulate ones who challenge you.

@twistyizzy Thank you for confirming all my points.

I have a problem with unsubstantiated bs, and with the tendency of the bs advocates to deflect.

I criticised the concept of faith schools, because ca 1/3 of all state schools in England are faith schools, and are allowed to discriminate based on faith, despite being funded by everyone's taxes. I was criticised because that was not a priority, by the same person who then yapped on about IB and Latin, which probably affect 2iish % of the population.

An "articulate" person would have explained why it's wrong to criticise something which affects 1/3 of the school but perfectly fine to criticise something which affects 2%.

A non-articulate person is unable to do that, so resort to playing the gender card. Yawn...

See the difference between me and you?
Me: facts
You: the gender card

By the way, my wife, sister and ex-partner would have all said the very same things. Let me guess - maybe you'd have accused all of them of internalising male aggression?

Also, how would you react if a man told you "you'll get there eventually", like she told me?
Would you consider it a perfectly legitimate and acceptable way to express disagreement?
Would you consider it an unacceptable entitled aggressive arrogant way to imply that your opinion is not legitimate?
Would you have considered that whoever told you that was "articulate"?

Can you answer? Will you do that with facts, or by playing the gender card?

“I mean, you could have talked about defunding special needs provisions, about all the parents who had to take their councils to court for that, about the struggle to hire and retain teachers, about how hard it is to find people who will mark GCSE and A level exams and why, about the **show that the marking of English Language GCSE is, with marks all over the place, about what a tragedy it is that from 1/4 to 1/3 of the kids fail to reach the expected level (from Y6 SATs all the way to GCSE), about how the system fails white working class kids, etc.”

Well if you would like to STALK me across different threads, I already did all of that.

But yes, I do not “yap” and even the word “stalk” I am quoting you directly.

Unlike you I do actually have real life experience of 4 DC going through all of this in the last 15 years.

Yes "yap" is an extremely misogynistic word

The IB is classic stealth crack down on grammar schools. IB offered in Bexley grammar, Dartford Grammar and WAS in Tonbridge Grammar. Essentially, all options for us on the train line and we have actual real life friends and families we know impacted by this.
But yeah, who cares about this “minority”. Well I do!

First they came for independent schools
Then they went for academies
Now they come for grammar schools

In other words exactly as predicted.
All whilst making state schools worse

And the fact they are redirecting our DC (clever kids) from Latin to Coding and Maths is relevant for us, democratically!

I actually have a living real life Sixth Former who is doing just that. Maths and Further Maths and Science now, you know to be “economically” and socially useful.
I would much have preferred her to do Music and Languages! But cuts by Labour have forced her onto the path they want her to follow!
Still waiting for you to wake up @ParentOfOne

I do not think @ParentOfOne has grasped the significance of cancelling the IB funding with just a few days notice to heads before Sixth Form open evenings. Essentially, Labour did a full on Tory Covid period jig of pulling the rug under the feet of thousands of children, staff and heads. The IB is very costly to deliver, they gave no notice, the impact on the entire school body is huge!
All during a week when the former Ed Secretary is admitting to mistakes made during Covid.
That is classic Labour for you. Whether it is sheer incompetence or maliciousness, who knows.

And because her method is very much focused on passive, switch-off-your-brain rote learning. Which is the exact opposite of what society needs

Most will have to learn the basics before creative thinking can happen. And that requires rote learning. This was an issue in the US with phonics vs whole word. Basically a whole generation of kids were given suboptimal reading skills because teachers in high positions (who really should have known better) didn’t like rote learning, didn’t respect its necessity, believed it killed love of learning

“And because her method is very much focused on passive, switch-off-your-brain rote learning. Which is the exact opposite of what society needs.”

That cannot be possible for Birbalsingh as she has astounding results for her demographic in English lit and English language. We looked at the results available via freedom of information in detail.

The OP probably dislikes the fact that Birbalsingh has compulsory RS at GCSE. They have it in for anything religion related.

It is not Birbalsingh’s fault that others try to copy some of what she does, without copying and supporting all of what she does to get those results. And we absolutely need women who are willing to speak out and I fully applaud her for that. She is passionate and vocal and that is great!

And further classic gaslighting from the OP on a female (aka Birbalsingh) - “But she quickly lost the plot.”

@Araminta1003 And further classic gaslighting from the OP on a female (aka Birbalsingh) - “But she quickly lost the plot.”

An intellectually honest person may disagree with me on my criticism of these extremely strict schools, but will recognise that I have criticised all of them, for example in my long thread on Mossbourne. Eg I have criticised the male headteacher of Ashcroft, the school which bans bicycles, and the leadership team of Mossbourne for their press releases, without even knowing their genders, because it's irrelevant.

An intellectually dishonest person ignores all of this and plays the gender card, as if no legitimate criticism were possible.

Thank you for confirming which of the two you are.

@twistyizzy
Yes "yap" is an extremely misogynistic word

If it's true I apologise, but could I please ask you to elaborate?

I have double checked on the Oxford Dictionary, the Collins Dictionary, the Merriam Webster, the online etymology dictionary and other sources, and I have not managed to find any reference that would suggest it is a misogynistic word.

By contrast, I was accused of being "hysterical", which is a patently misogynistic word, without anyone batting an eyelid. Talk about double standards.

@Araminta1003 The OP probably dislikes the fact that Birbalsingh has compulsory RS at GCSE. They have it in for anything religion related.

As often happens, you are wrong. I actually think it's important for students to learn about the various worldviews, as long as there is no indoctrination

I do not think ParentOfOne has grasped the significance of cancelling the IB funding with just a few days notice to heads before Sixth Form open evenings.

You may have missed that I didn't say much about the IB because I don't know much. I don't know what's happened. If Labour has cancelled something at the very last minute, causing disruption, that's obviously terrible. I was not defending that. I was simply questioning your logic whereby I shouldn't criticise a system whereby 1/3 of state-funded schools are faith schools, are funded by everyone's taxes, yet most of those can discriminate based on faith, but we should all get as worked up as you on something which affects 1-2% of the student population.

I was simply pointing out the inconsistency and the double standards.

But yeah, who cares about this “minority”.

Yet another textbook strawman. I didn't say no one should care about minorities, I was questioning your double standards. See above.

First they came for independent schools
Then they went for academies

Yes, it's all a big conspiracy, isn't it?
Who is doing what to the academies? Claiming "they went for the academies" when ca. 3/4 of secondary schools are academies is quite ridiculous. All I have heard is to increase accountability. Given what happened at Holland Par School, Mossbourne and I can only say: "finally!". But let's remember it's all vague and up in the air

@Araminta1003 On Latin: yet another bad faith strawman.
I have never said that no one should do music and languages.
I have said that defunding Latin is not a hill to die on, but a peak out of touch mumsnet moment.
Had you said it's wrong to defund music and languages to force everyone to do maths I would have agreed with you, but that's not what you had said.

**